Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay From: lindsay@MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Macintosh OS Message-ID: <9548@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 6 Jun 90 17:48:17 GMT References: <1990Jun6.055847.14995@d.cs.okstate.edu> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 30 In article <1990Jun6.055847.14995@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: > So the whole point is that any background app that hogs the CPU was >written irresponsibly, even though it may come from Apple. (MacWrite and >MacPaint both did naughty things!) > Let me say again that preemptive multitasking is not a necessity for >99% of the Mac community. I won't mind when the Mac does do preemption, >though. I have yet to see any reason other than poor programming that >cooperative multitasking may be unacceptable for most people. Hmmm. Several major products from Apple both did naughty things? "As a rule software systems do not work well until they have been used, and have failed repeatedly, in real applications." - Dave Parnas, Commun. ACM (33, 6 June 1990 p.636) When I started programming in the 60's, I noticed that many people acted as if their next program would be perfect, and would run correctly the first time. The fact that this had never happened to them didn't seem to influence their behavior. Only the best programmers factored fallibility into the design process. I know that CS education is better now: but I refuse to believe in silver bullets. Nor does Apple: they do intend to eliminate this blemish. -- Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science